Human rights groups warned last night that the global ban on torture had been undermined by the law lords' ruling yesterday that the radical Islamist preacher and terror suspect, Abu Qatada, can be sent back to Jordan to face trial.

The judgment revived the government's hopes of implementing its "deportation with assurances" strategy to deal with nine Algerians and three Jordanians, including Qatada, who have been certified as "international terror suspects".

A "delighted" home secretary, Jacqui Smith, yesterday signed a deportation order for Qatada but his lawyer, Gareth Peirce, immediately lodged an appeal against the ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The appeal could take up to two years to resolve.

"An application is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights. In the meantime I have signed Abu Qatada's deportation order which will be served on him today. I am keen to deport this dangerous individual as soon as I can," said Smith.

She said the ruling against Qatada and two Algerians known only as RB and U, who also face deportation, highlighted "the threat these individuals pose to our nation's security and vindicates our efforts to remove them".

The home secretary could face fresh embarrassment today when the Strasbourg judges rule on whether compensation should be paid to Qatada and 10 others in Britain. Their detention in Belmarsh maximum security prison in the aftermath of 9/11 as international terror suspects was declared unlawful by the House of Lords in a landmark judgment.

The law lords ruling revives the government's policy of deporting terror suspects to countries that sign "no torture, no death penalty deals". The policy had appeared dead in the water after the court of appeal blocked Qatada's removal because he would face a trial based on evidence obtained under torture by the Jordanian intelligence services.

But five law lords, led by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, sitting with Lord Hoffman, Lord Hope, Lord Brown and Lord Mance, ruled unanimously yesterday that allegations of torture-tainted evidence were not enough and there had to be a real risk that Qatada would face "a flagrant denial of justice" and a "total denial of the right to a fair trial" if he were deported to Jordan.

Phillips said the ban on the use of evidence obtained by torture was not because such evidence was unreliable or because its use made the trial unfair: "Rather it is because the 'state must stand firm against the conduct that has produced the evidence'. That principle applies to the state in which an attempt is made to adduce such evidence.

"It does not require this state, the UK, to retain in this country to the detriment of national security a terrorist suspect unless it has a high degree of assurance that evidence obtained will not

be adduced against him in Jordan," said Phillips. "What is relevant in this appeal is the degree of risk that Mr Othman [Abu Qatada] will suffer a flagrant denial of justice if he is deported to Jordan." The case had not passed that "exacting test", he said.

Peirce said the ruling was a backward step that had poured cold water on the belief that Britain was willing to confront the ugly issue of torture. She said Qatada had been convicted twice in his absence in Jordan and would face a retrial by a military court on evidence that was highly likely to have been obtained by torture.

"The House of Lords has said in terms that the trial of a civilian before a military court will not debar deportation, but more importantly, it will not stop deportation on the basis of the certain use in that trial of evidence very likely to have come from torture."

Eric Metcalfe of Justice, the all-party law reform group, said the ruling undermined the global ban on torture. "A promise not to torture from a regime that tortures its own people is worth nothing. It is shameful that the government negotiated these deals in the first place, and saddening that the courts have refused to intervene."